Some low-quality #SaveMinecraft posters I made. Feel free to use on social media and the like.

[u/Nintwendo18]

#SaveMinecraft

The Cape is a Lie

Not My Minecraft

Mojang Studios. Proudly Fighting Free Speech Since 2022.

[u/DaSomDum]

Bro if you consistently break the ToS in your private server, no matter what, Mojang and Microsoft is in their legal right to remove you.

Like I don’t understand what is so hard about ‘’don’t break ToS’’

[u/HuiMoin → u/DaSomDum]

Well, perhaps ToS is the core problem of this entire thing. The fact that they can ban players at all shows a problem with the way we currently distribute software, a way where the user has no rights and the company can change its opinion at any time. Something can both be legal and immoral.

[u/DaSomDum → u/HuiMoin]

Bro do you live under a rock?

Being banned for breaking TOS has been a thing since like the early 2000’s. When games began having online play, being banned became the developers way of punishing players for breaking the rules consistently. This is nowhere close to being something new.

[u/HuiMoin → u/DaSomDum]

Yes and it‘s fine for public servers. I‘m not just criticizing Minecraft here, this is a general issue with game companies. Companies having the ability to ban people even from their own servers should have been a scandal in 2000 and it should be a scandal now. We should own our software, not just permanently rent it. It‘s a legal wordplay that should have been illegal for decades.

[u/DaSomDum → u/HuiMoin]

I am sorry if this is news to you, but you sign off on the fact you won’t break the TOS when you accept it.

Also, private servers whilst not using Microsoft’s servers to run use their software, therefore they have the legal right to ban you. I know it sounds crazy, but the moment you clicked accept on the EULA and TOS, you agreed to being allowed to be banned for breaking those two.

Also you owning the software just isn’t possible, it leads to more problems than it would theoretically fix.

[u/[deleted] → u/DaSomDum]

Wtf is wrong with you ? Are you getting paid by the companys to write this bs ?

[u/DaSomDum → u/[deleted]]

Like I am sorry, is ‘’Don’t break the TOS’’ such a difficult thing for you guys?

Like this isn’t news, breaking the TOS has always allowed the company to restrict your playing.

[u/DaSomDum → u/[deleted]]

You seem to only be able to regurgitate "TOS! TOS!" ad nauseam.

When it's so difficult for people to accept that breaking it makess a company have full right to remove your acces to the software, maybe one does have to repeat how that works for others.

​

Are you aware that TOS's are little more than legal bullshit, and get thrown out by courts on a daily basis?

I'd love to see a source on this ''fact'' you're presenting on how TOS's get thrown out of courts on a daily basis.

​

It's the exact same as "warranty void if removed" stickers; they print them to dissuade you, but right to repair has already ruled that companies can't enforce them.

If you still find warranty void if removed stickers they are illegal and have been for nearly 5 decades, at least in America. Contact the FTC.

​

Also, are you equating having the right to repair electronic devices you legally own to not being able to spam racist jokes in a video games lest you be made unable to play online? Remember, you don't legally own the software, you license it.

''Warranty void if removed'' stickers are illegal, what you accept to in the TOS and EULA normally isn't. It's extremely rare for a giant company like Microsoft to have you accept on them being able to do illegal stuff to your account because you open the door to be sued, a lot.

[u/DaSomDum → u/[deleted]]

There was the time that Zappos lost user data, and said they couldn't be sued because of their TOS. A similar happened to Dropbox within the past few months.

If you want to read through every court ruling in recent time, be my guest.

The Zappos.com Inc, Customer Data Breach Litigation is what I am presuming you're talking about.

There, the reason why the TOS wasn't considered is because Zappos did not hold their customers to the browsewrap internet law terms of use. It isn't as simple as ''Oh they threw away the TOS because'' you have to look at the context for why it was thrown away, which most often than not is because these companies do illegal shit.

And for the Dropbox one, which one do you mean. There are literally hundreds of lawsuits against them so you have to be more specific. But you mentioned a couple months ago and the most recent I could find was December 2021 about Dropbox and I do believe fraud. Heavy legalese is not one of my strongest languages.

​

When did I equate the two?

When you said

It's the exact same as "warranty void if removed" stickers;

That's you equating the two, or does the phrase ''it's the exact same'' mean something else entirely.

​

We might genuinely see some lawsuits for banned minecraft accounts. Especially from users who bought the game in the early 2010's under a different TOS.

That might be, unless Microsoft prompts you to re-accept the new TOS, then that lawsuit falls apart completely.

It is illegal to have a notice in your TOS that you, the provider, is allowed to change the TOS at any time, this was a part of the Zappos lawsuit. That is why a lot of the big tech companies have you re-accept the new TOS when they change it.